PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21542
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 06 Dec 2017 14:13

Gagan wrote:The F-35 represents one part of an ecosystem of smart weapons and communication tech.
The whole ecosystem will have to be brought in, subject to signing several treaties that for example India is not willing to do.

WRT Turkey: Very interesting going ons there. Erdogan is miffed that the culinary institute tried to do a coup on him, and has made a U turn and is in Col Pooty's umbrella. Inquiring minds would like to know, whatever happened to the 50 odd lotus petals of the B-61 denomination stored in Incirlik?


Turkey and UAE wont have a better agreement with US than India does , US has explicitly said no to sharing of data with S-400 for Turkey or Su-35 for UAE if they buy it.

Technically it is not a challenge to share data it is the desire not to share F-35 data with systems other than what US provides. May be US wants those data to remain classified for all purpose and intent and its their right

Any way it is a matter of academic value for us as F-35 is not competing in either the IAF or Naval programs

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1215
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Thakur_B » 06 Dec 2017 14:40

The new engine is significantly shorter than the old engine.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21542
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 06 Dec 2017 15:52

Thakur_B wrote:The new engine is significantly shorter than the old engine.


Current 117 Engine: 3 LPC, 7 HPC, 1 HPT and 1 LPT
New Id 30 Engine: 3 -stage LPC; 5 -stage HPC (see pics) and single staged turbine. [ viewtopic.php?t=6811&start=320#p1754619 ]

Interview with Saturn GD on 2nd stage engine [ viewtopic.php?t=5450&start=2880#p1438040 ]

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5179
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Viv S » 06 Dec 2017 20:29

Austin wrote:There is no gurantee that US would allow integration of F-35 into any other assest , considering it is not allowing NATO allay Turkey to integrate with S-400 or close allay like UAE to allow it to integrate with Su-35 ......certainly US officials have mentioned that officially now so all bets are off as far as F-35 goes unless US officially mentions it other wise.

The F-35 is not supposed to integrate with the S-400. It'll link with the IACCS via the ODL (functioning in lieu of the Link 16) the same way as the F-16 would. Neither Turkey not UAE have an analogue to the AFNET, they use NATO C4I systems.

Austin wrote:F-35 is not in contention for any of IAF or IN program so it really does not matter either ways.

Maybe, maybe not. The FGFA was a sure thing until a year or two ago, now.. we have to wait and see. And there is an open SEF requirement for the IAF that may have several outcomes. As far BRF is concerned, we discuss what our available options are, in addition to discussing what outcomes are most likely. Hence all the discussion about the Tu-22/Tu-160 for the IN.

Gagan wrote:The F-35 represents one part of an ecosystem of smart weapons and communication tech.
The whole ecosystem will have to be brought in, subject to signing several treaties that for example India is not willing to do.

Not really. In terms of communication, there are four modes employed - Link 16 (long range), MADL (line-of-sight), radio & UHF Satcom. The Israelis are replacing all but the MADL on the F-35I with local analogues. The IAF meanwhile relies on the Operational Data Link developed by IAI, and Software Defined Radios delivered by Rockwell Collins & TATA-SED. Practically speaking, whatever agreements are needed to operationalize the F-16 will be, more or less, sufficient for the F-35 as well.

All of the other stuff that one reads about like integrating it with the USN's Aegis to guide SM-3 or SM-6 to shoot down ballistic missiles and other targets at long range, is all icing on the cake. Its not essential to the basic functioning of the aircraft.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21542
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 06 Dec 2017 20:45

The F-35 is not supposed to integrate with the S-400. It'll link with the IACCS via the ODL (functioning in lieu of the Link 16) the same way as the F-16 would. Neither Turkey not UAE have an analogue to the AFNET, they use NATO C4I systems.


That is what I have been saying they wont allow F-35 to integrate with ODL they dont intent to share F-35 data.

If UAE and Turkey wants they can have their own data link but that wont change the intent of US to share the data with 3rd party system.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby brar_w » 06 Dec 2017 21:02

There is no protocol outside of link-16 when it comes to the standard and nature of the data that would be shared on the F-35. The possibilities are endless including the ones that the USAF has on its 10 year horizon that requires data-link capability that technologically isn't possible at the moment. Israel as been able to use the open channels on the F-35s CNI to add its command and control data-sharing but will rely on it and the Link-16 since it is a participant in that effort as well. Any decision to integrate ODL, or any other data link will first and foremost begin with a discussion on what the protocol and minimum standard of information is that will be shared back and forth. Only then can the program office and the GOTUS decide. No such request has yet been made because the F-35 has till today only has had customers that had a L-16 backbone.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5179
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Viv S » 06 Dec 2017 21:09

Austin wrote:That is what I have been saying they wont allow F-35 to integrate with ODL they dont intent to share F-35 data.

If UAE and Turkey wants they can have their own data link but that wont change the intent of US to share the data with 3rd party system.

The F-35 data is no different from the F-16 data as far as the IACCS is concerned. Employment of the ODL doesn't require sharing of proprietary networking protocols.

Unlike India, UAE & Turkey don't have their own network, data-link or IFF system - they both use Link 16 and other spec gear. They'd prefer to have the S-400 integrated into their NATO-spec C4I systems to operate seamlessly but that idea's obviously unlikely to gain traction within NATO.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5179
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Viv S » 06 Dec 2017 21:12

brar_w wrote:There is no protocol outside of link-16 when it comes to the standard and nature of the data that would be shared on the F-35. The possibilities are endless including the ones that the USAF has on its 10 year horizon that requires data-link capability that technologically isn't possible at the moment. Israel as been able to use the open channels on the F-35s CNI to add its command and control data-sharing but will rely on it and the Link-16 since it is a participant in that effort as well. Any decision to integrate ODL, or any other data link will first and foremost begin with a discussion on what the protocol and minimum standard of information is that will be shared back and forth. Only then can the program office and the GOTUS decide. No such request has yet been made because the F-35 has till today only has had customers that had a L-16 backbone.

Any discussion on the F-16 (wrt SEF) will also begin with a similar discussion. On what the COMCASA is to consist of, to be precise.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3861
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Kartik » 07 Dec 2017 06:29

Video- Russia flies first Su-57 fitted with new production 'Product 30' engine

Can't get over just how gorgeous this airplane really is.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3103
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Cain Marko » 07 Dec 2017 07:58

^ true dat... It's got to be the prettiest of the 5 gen birds

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15292
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karan M » 07 Dec 2017 10:03

It looks well, but the big question is how ready it really is. I guess one more decade to mature.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21542
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 07 Dec 2017 11:44

Karan M wrote:It looks well, but the big question is how ready it really is. I guess one more decade to mature.


Maturity of an aircraft is more of a question of squadron service an MKI is more mature then it was a decade back even with all avionics/engines etc remain the same with minor upgrade on radar side.

There will always be things one will find out as it enters squadron service and it enter its daily grind , some things will be found out even after a decade or 2 of squadron service.

PAK-FA will be what it is from technical side what its designers have frozen on the technical side and if that is achieved which will happen only by FOC mid-end of next year once complete test phase gets completed with existing 10-12 PT and Pre-Production model the last 2 PPM.

Maturity will come with time as it enters squadron service , Tejas with its existing design and technical freeze will be a more mature aircraft a decade from now.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1215
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Thakur_B » 07 Dec 2017 14:10

Only someone not in their right mind would say that airframe wise Pak-Fa is not a beast. Russians are second to none when it comes to it. The Izd 30 program also seems to be on track.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6137
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby nachiket » 09 Dec 2017 00:04

Have they released any specs on the new engine? Thrust, SFC, weight, compression ratio etc.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15292
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karan M » 09 Dec 2017 01:01

No, that's not what I mean. I mean when an aircraft at least has the basics ready and unlike a lot of Russian gear we inducted it turns out a lot of the stuff promised is nowhere ready. Its what 2 decades since we started getting T-90s and yet its TI issue is yet to be resolved.

My take is best we induct the PAKFA only once VVS inducts it and a few years later, so the kinks are worked out.

Austin wrote:
Karan M wrote:It looks well, but the big question is how ready it really is. I guess one more decade to mature.


Maturity of an aircraft is more of a question of squadron service an MKI is more mature then it was a decade back even with all avionics/engines etc remain the same with minor upgrade on radar side.

There will always be things one will find out as it enters squadron service and it enter its daily grind , some things will be found out even after a decade or 2 of squadron service.

PAK-FA will be what it is from technical side what its designers have frozen on the technical side and if that is achieved which will happen only by FOC mid-end of next year once complete test phase gets completed with existing 10-12 PT and Pre-Production model the last 2 PPM.

Maturity will come with time as it enters squadron service , Tejas with its existing design and technical freeze will be a more mature aircraft a decade from now.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21542
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 09 Dec 2017 11:49

First Analysis of Iz 30 engine by a Poster Iz 30 Engine

Indranil whats your take ?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6653
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Indranil » 09 Dec 2017 13:48

I don't know much about engines apart from the 101 concepts like bypass ratio, pressure ratios, stages etc. Obviously this new engine is a significant step forward. It answers one of the critical requirements of IAF. The rest, I leave it to the more gyanis here.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3103
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Cain Marko » 12 Dec 2017 06:48

WRT to all aspect stealth or the lack of it on the pakfa. Head on at least, the bird seems to be very tfta. it is only In terms oof the backend, that some questions are raised. However, how importannt is all aspect stealth keeping in mind the followinng:
1) Most SAMs wiill be hardpressed to get the bird in tailchase mode because of its high speed and relatively low rcs even in that quarter. In any case doesnt radar acquisition range seriously reduce in tailchase mode - like over 50%?
2) If the idea is to take out heavily defended areas with long ranged supersonic/hypersonic, stealthy cruise missiles such as the bmos ng, how likely is the pakfa to really encounter powerful Sams considering it will stay outside sam envelope, launch and scoot?
3) Is the likely increase in cost associated with all aspeect stealth worthwhile keeping in mind the above?

A2A at least there seems to be nothing lacking wrt the pakfa. Russki philosophy seems to be KISS and quite practical.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21542
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 06 Jan 2018 10:40


Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5199
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Rakesh » 08 Jan 2018 03:08

https://twitter.com/indiandefencera/sta ... 3255174145 --> Frazor! This is (but still unconfirmed) NATO reporting name for new Russian fighter jet.

Image

Rishi_Tri
BRFite
Posts: 140
Joined: 13 Feb 2017 14:49

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Rishi_Tri » 15 Jan 2018 00:08

Good analysis on FGFA on Lok Sabha TV

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LE2i-JQl5kA

Bharadwaj
BRFite
Posts: 197
Joined: 09 Oct 2006 11:09

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Bharadwaj » 14 Feb 2018 22:43

...
Last edited by Rakesh on 14 Feb 2018 23:05, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Bharadwaj Saar: One article, One thread. Otherwise discussion is all over the place. Your comment in the post has been moved to SEF Thread.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35640
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby SaiK » 15 Feb 2018 23:05

http://imagehosting.io/images/2017/12/08/052D.jpg
^^^^

Sounds like the TVC space is still only for 15* on Y axis and 360* on X. The tell-tail pic clarity. :wink:

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5199
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Rakesh » 15 Feb 2018 23:59

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/964078042120417280 --> Pulling out of the FGFA project with Russia would not be a wise choice in my opinion. Especially given that $295 million has already been spent on it and HAL Aircraft Manufacturing Division, Nasik has the pre-adaptation necessary to build this fighter.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2184
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Cybaru » 16 Feb 2018 01:06

Disagree with SJHA, If it doesn't meet our requirement, get out. Forget sunk cost.

If we do end up going with PAKFA, it should be that the new engines are far more reliable than the MKI engines, have higher uptimes, are easier to maintain and have lower fuel consumption. These should absolutely be back ported to MKI when the Super30 upgrade is considered. Under no circumstances should we maintain two lines for engines and LRUs for the next 3-4 decades. Every LRU and sub-system on PAKFA should make it on the MKI. That way it will be really easy to maintain 450+ planes. The only difference between MKI and Pakfa should be the stealth signature period.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35640
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby SaiK » 16 Feb 2018 03:52

We should not ignore the sunk cost from corruption tracking angle. I'm concerned at any money sunk by earlier lootyen sarkar.

I'm also concerned at IAF strategic planning w.o any tactical plans

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2184
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Cybaru » 16 Feb 2018 03:58

Those are valid concerns but don't effect IAF squadron strength directly. Different thread?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19310
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Philip » 16 Feb 2018 04:47

The SU-57 is clearly a v.diff. bird to the MKI.There is a dramatic increase in stealth, internal weapons bays, 360 deg. radars/sensors, etc.Costing approx. the same as a Rafale- it may even be cheaper, being offered to us with TOT, IP rights etc., and can be inducted using 2 sqds of Ru std. aircraft as was done with first batches of SU-30s, later modified or returned.IAF specific aircraft can be developed in the same manner as was done to create the MKIs.The bird looks likely to be a far superior bird to the Chinese attempts and should enable us to continue our domination in the skies of the IOR Region.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby brar_w » 16 Feb 2018 05:03

.Costing approx. the same as a Rafale- it may even be cheaper, being offered to us with TOT, IP rights etc.


The aircraft has not even yet entered serial production, or the trials of it, or its second stage engine concluded. Secondly, the FGFA is a program he Russians want the MOD to invest in as a developmental partner and all those things about TOT and IP rights will have to be negotiated so none of it can be taken to be certain. Much like any other program, TOT is likely to be available in some areas while not in others. But this first requires down payment towards the developmental effort something which has been expected "soon" for some time now. All this will become a lot clearer once the agreement is signed and more details provided. Right now, the "development", program participation, industrial benefit, TOT, and cost are all TBD.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 16 Feb 2018 05:36

Why does the IAF seem against the FGFA? They were actively against it after the Russians clammed up after a demo accident and refused the IAF any access to causes. Answer: the IAF was totally petrified at having it's CAPEX tied up in yet another R&D exercise at the expense of the Rafale which they wanted as their medium weight a/c. Bird in hand vs....

$295MM is sunk cost. You don't want to spend billions to justify it. Sunk costs are 'good bye' monies.

If you want an AMCA killer in budget terms, the FGFA is it.

The deal MP made with the IAF was 123 LCAs in exchange for 54 (36+18) Rafales + SEF as insurance in case HAL fails to deliver and a moonwalk away from the FGFA.

This is not from any 'Horse's mouth' or the other end. It's all public in little bits and pieces. It is a compromise between 'hope' and necessity.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2184
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Cybaru » 16 Feb 2018 06:41

Philip wrote:The SU-57 is clearly a v.diff. bird to the MKI.There is a dramatic increase in stealth, internal weapons bays, 360 deg. radars/sensors


Other than increased stealth and internal weapon bays, everything else the super-30 upgrade can have. We would be stupid not to. The engines, electronics, missiles etc. They don't have much R&D money and haven't made much of a difference to the platform other than stealth shaping. Everything else is lacking due to funding. They are at the same level as Su-35S. All their radars/electronic show incremental changes at best, not revolutionary changes.

A GE414+ or an erj2XX+ in amca will bring the same stealth shaping and better engines to play. Nothing else is missing, We have all our pieces from Tejas project with lots of efforts going towards all of them 24*7. We are funding stuff and innovating.

We need help with spectra like jammers and growler like electronics, neither types the Russians have shown any interest in sharing or working towards. If they have something, it doesn't necessarily work for us.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4087
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby srai » 16 Feb 2018 07:03

Cybaru wrote:Disagree with SJHA, If it doesn't meet our requirement, get out. Forget sunk cost.

If we do end up going with PAKFA, it should be that the new engines are far more reliable than the MKI engines, have higher uptimes, are easier to maintain and have lower fuel consumption. These should absolutely be back ported to MKI when the Super30 upgrade is considered. Under no circumstances should we maintain two lines for engines and LRUs for the next 3-4 decades. Every LRU and sub-system on PAKFA should make it on the MKI. That way it will be really easy to maintain 450+ planes. The only difference between MKI and Pakfa should be the stealth signature period.


Some form of FGFA (aka PAK-FA MKI) will happen. Being the number one importer, India has a policy of distributing arms purchases between Russia, EU (France, UK, Italy and Germany), and USA (last decade) in order to gain strategic relationships. France has been a reliable partner and was awarded with the Rafale deal. Russia will also be awarded large multi-billion arms deals long into the future. Their products are US sanction-proof. Over the last decade India has been trying to move the relationship to one of JV instead of just pure import. FGFA is one of those highlight JV efforts. Flaws and all it will happen.
Last edited by srai on 16 Feb 2018 07:09, edited 1 time in total.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3103
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Cain Marko » 16 Feb 2018 07:08

The pakfa is an excellent platform and will be a world beater as it develops further. The design, like it's flanker predecessor is superb. And this gives it exceptionally maneuverability and acceleration. I'm willing to bet that it has the best str and itr amongst any fighter currently flying.

As far as stealth goes, it is practical and makes up for the lack of aft aspect stealth by relying on very high speeds making tail chase engagements all the more tricky. Not to mention long ranged stands off missiles to avoid enemy AD.

Yes it has issues, what fighter doesn't in development? But if the iaf wants a readymade bird, to the pakfa might not be available in a hurry.

For these reasons and the strategic nature of the relationship, I don't doubt that at least a few sqds of the pakfa mki will make it to the iaf.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby brar_w » 16 Feb 2018 07:29

It is tough to imagine the IAF not getting the FGFA at some time. It will however, take some time. The Russian Air-Force is going to soon place an order for a dozen, and hope to get about 2 aircraft delivered in 2019. They could probably field 36-48 aircraft in the 2022-2024 timeframe provided the transition to serial production --> gradual increase in production, and they conclude all testing, state trials and certifications in a timely manner. The IAF can then expect to get the FGFA in the 2025-2027 timeframe given it will take 5-8 years to develop the aircraft once the contract is signed.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5199
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Rakesh » 16 Feb 2018 08:17

Cosmo_R wrote:Why does the IAF seem against the FGFA? They were actively against it after the Russians clammed up after a demo accident and refused the IAF any access to causes. Answer: the IAF was totally petrified at having it's CAPEX tied up in yet another R&D exercise at the expense of the Rafale which they wanted as their medium weight a/c. Bird in hand vs....

$295MM is sunk cost. You don't want to spend billions to justify it. Sunk costs are 'good bye' monies.

If you want an AMCA killer in budget terms, the FGFA is it.

The deal MP made with the IAF was 123 LCAs in exchange for 54 (36+18) Rafales + SEF as insurance in case HAL fails to deliver and a moonwalk away from the FGFA.

This is not from any 'Horse's mouth' or the other end. It's all public in little bits and pieces. It is a compromise between 'hope' and necessity.

Why don't you provide the little bits and pieces (sources) of the following;

1) 54 Rafales (36 + 18)*
2) SEF

*I am intrigued to know about the source for 18. I really am, because I am all for a repeat order of at least 2 more Rafale squadrons.

SEF has turned out to be anything but insurance. It has turned out to be the anti-thesis of what the acquistion was supposed to do in the first place! Not jobs, not global supply chain, not payment to America for tech, not get-the-ball-rolling-in-other-sectors-of-the-economy :), not parts, not ANYTHING.....other than wasting FOREX.

If the deal was this good - as claimed on BRF - a G2G deal would have been signed by now and we would be churning out F-16s.

I have more faith in Su-57 coming (more like being forced onto us) than F-35 coming and I vouch for the latter.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19310
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Philip » 16 Feb 2018 15:24

the FGFA is the easiest way in which we can acquire an operate a 5th-gen fighter.It is already flying,on the brink of series production,where we've already made an investment in the JV. The Russian timetable and our inability to deliver the goods, human resources-wise,lack of design skills,saw us hesitate when the programme was proceeding apace.When asked which areas of the programme we would like to deliver some years ago,we could not .Remember how the IJT team was also ridiculously tasked with the FGFA duties ?! However,lengthy discussions have subsequently been held,the IAF's wish list on specs,etc. duly acknowledged and a roadmap for the IAF's FGFA equiv to our MKI worked out and agreed upon.OIfficial reports said that all technical issues hadbeen resolved.The big Q was the amt. to be paid for the JV,IP rights which would be shared by both partners.,etc. HAL is geared up for manufacturing the bird after MKI production ends and at least open high-powered committee has given its assent to go ahead.

The only clear reason that I can see why the IAF is hesitating because there is very powerful backing for the Rafale and we know by whom.This co. signed a deal with Dassault after the M2K upgrade,now mired in a spat between HAL and the IAF over labour costs.The Rafale is also in a political storm over costs with both Cong. and NDA each claiming that its negotiations have given the IAF/nation a better deal.However,with the Rafale,there is NO TOT period. Secondly,why pay a huge amount for tech that is going to be outdated in the next decade,when most air forces from western to eastern will be fielding new stealth birds? To answer that Q the IAF is pointing in the direction of the AMCA,which is nothing but a paperplane right now,maybe a wind model,but which poses even more challenges to desi design skills than even the LCA. We have no experience in developing our own AESA (the LCA is to fly with an Israeli one) ,conformal radars,advanced IRST sensors,mart helmets,etc.,plus the main ingredient,the engines. We will yet again be hunting for a firang engine to squeeze into an airframe already designed.I am sure that even the most optimistic advocate of the AMCA will agree that it will take a min. of at least a decade before the brid completes its testing and as for series production,the LCA programme gives us an example.

Therefore for the next crucial decade,the IAF will be without a 5th-gen stealth aircraft.The F-35 will outdo the FGFA/SU-57 on costs,plus western allies of the US alone will get the bird,first pick of production as well.We are not a military ally of the US and unless we sign on to all the intrusive agreements required-which we don't have to with Russia,the negotiations for acquiring the F-35 will be babudom's wet dream. It's why even Ashley Tellis has advocated us going easy on the AMCA and to continue with the FGFA.The US is being pragmatic.Dealing with India is like threading through a nightmarish web of babudom and we simply don't have the money for large purchases too.Yet it still wants us to be the bulwark against China in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region and if our armed forces are equipped with BMos missiles,Akula subs,SU-57s,far superior to their Chinese equivs. so much the better.There are huge opportunities for US def. biz with India as seen in the C-17s,C-130Js,Apaches,Chinooks,howitzers,naval helos,etc.

Our strategy should be to acquire 2 sqds of basic Ru std. FGFAs just as we did with the SU-30s,then develop our own variant while putting the bird through its paces in our environmentlal conditions.If the birds start arriving from 2020,we should be able to acquire 2 sqds even before 2025.In the meantime,HAL could also work on the upgrading of our MKis,40 to start with to SS std.,incorporating some of the etch/components being used on the SU-57,esp. the new engines if available. The SS Flankers and FGFAs are going to be the hardcore of the IAF's fleet in the next decade. A Flanker can carry a BMos ASM which a Rafale simply cannot! That single factor alone should have determined the future course of action,but as I said,there are very powerful forces who want their pound of flesh with the Raffy deal.Another powerful interest also wants its pound of flesh with the SEF deal! As we near elections,which are most likely to happen this autumn, everything is literally up in the air for the 3 birds.Rafale,FGFA and Gripen.

PS:The breaking news of the immensity of the PNB banking scam,such an utterly audacious and brazen act of looting of the nation's coffers by criminals and corrupt banking officials,has stunned the nation.The indications are that the scam might affect and unveil other scams in other banks.There is grave concern about the security and integrity of the Indian banking system and thus far the RBI is as silent as the sphinx,clearly having abdicated its duty.No one has a clue as to how much of our wealth has been looted. To give you a clue as to how serious the situ is,I got a call this morning at the impolite hour of 8am (!) from a joker of a bank,asking me when my next EMI was forthcoming,after I had just four days ago paid it! I was so enraged as it came just after reading the latest news of the PNB scam,that I tore into him and demanded why he wasn't following up on the key defaulters and scamsters like Mallya.Modi and Modi,instead of the unfortunate middle class and honest taxpayers,a paltry % of the nation's population who are being crushed and flattened by taxes and more taxes. If anyone thinks that our financial situ is healthy,the reality at ground level as perceived by the common man is anything but that. The armed forces will be lucky if there is enough moolah for part of their desprately rqd. needs. Only the smaller stuff like small arms,ammo,some spares,etc.are being pushed through by an energetic DM.The big tkt. items are still in the air.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2419
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby tsarkar » 16 Feb 2018 15:48

Austin wrote:Maturity of an aircraft is more of a question of squadron service

This sounds like a restaurant cook serving half cooked/uncooked raw food to patrons and asking them to either eat raw or complete cooking it themselves in the dining table. Which is what we had to do for Su-30MKI, MiG-29K and T-90S tanks.

Austin wrote:all avionics/engines etc remain the same with minor upgrade on radar side.

:eek: We replaced entire electronic stack with Project Vertivale.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/aircr ... ivale.html

Radar Computer, Mission Computer, Display Processor, Litening Pod, Radios, Altimeters, IFF, SAMTEL displays?

What Russian avionics remain on Su-30MKI?

Why pay for Su-57 if we have to develop things ourselves?

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2419
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby tsarkar » 16 Feb 2018 15:53

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/964078042120417280 --> Pulling out of the FGFA project with Russia would not be a wise choice in my opinion. Especially given that $295 million has already been spent on it and HAL Aircraft Manufacturing Division, Nasik has the pre-adaptation necessary to build this fighter.

What is pre-adaptation?

If pre-adaption means screwdrivergiri of old subsystems, then doesn't it defeat the very purpose of having a "new" fighter? Doesnt new fighter mean new airframe, new subsystems, new avionics, new weapons?

What was the RoI on $295 Mn? Zero

Why throw good money after bad money?

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 854
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Vips » 16 Feb 2018 20:28

Philip wrote:the FGFA is the easiest way in which we can acquire an operate a 5th-gen fighter.


First and foremost are you sure the FGFA is "fifth generation" ? The IAF has pointed out amongst the other shortcomings, the aircraft is not stealthy enough.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1442
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Zynda » 17 Feb 2018 01:57

It seems like the Russians are not happy with IAF expressed desire/request to LM for a classified debriefing on F-35A.

Russia has strongly conveyed that in case India does not take a call shortly, it will go ahead with a different partner for the FGFA next generation fighter jet programme.

Link


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: yensoy and 38 guests